Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:41am PT
|
"You might be correct that less than 0.5 % is atheists according to you definition but you haven't give any reference for that claim"
Raymond, it's in YOUR first source, in the notes below the figures.
"I dont know the clear definition of atheist that you use and I dont care either"
It's not my definition, it's the definition provide the source YOU posted.
This page: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
"Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious)".
Please read your own source before going any further, Raymond.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:49am PT
|
Blight, the sentence you showed from my first reference. Doesn't imply 0. 5% without you making incorrect assumptions.
My third reference also doesn't show your 0.5 %
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:59am PT
|
Blight, the sentence you showed from my first reference. Doesn't imply 0. 5% without you making incorrect assumptions.
There's nothing unsafe about the assumption that countries with more religious people will have fewer atheists, in fact it follows logically.
You don't know that the assumption is incorrect because you've provided exactly ZERO evidence to the countrary; in fact your own source supports the 0.5% figure.
Your third reference doesn't have a figure for atheists alone.
It only has a combined figure for nonreligious groups (atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including antireligious (opposed to all religion))
Again, please read your own source to confirm this before posting more, the definition is immmediately below the figures in bold type.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:08am PT
|
"There's nothing unsafe about the assumption that countries with more religious people will have fewer atheists, in fact it follows logically."
In what logic? The logic of blight? Does it follows in the same way as the percent of protestant of all cristians is the same in all countries? O that might not be true.
Those countries would have less non religous people. You say that atheist and non reliogous is not the same.
"You don't know that the assumption is incorrect because you've provided exactly ZERO evidence to the countrary; in fact your own source supports the 0.5% figure."
No, it doesn't as explained above.
also from the reference
"For the year 2000, David B. Barrett (Encyclopedia Britannica and World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001) classified 150,089,508 (2.5% of world's population) as atheists"
"Your third reference doesn't have a figure for atheists alone.
It only has a combined figure for nonreligious groups (atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including antireligious (opposed to all religion))
Again, please read your own source to confirm this before posting more, the definition is immmediately below the figures in bold type. "
Correct, so we dont know.
You make a claim without backing it up. I tried to disprove your claim and may have done a bad job with that as my references was not clear cut. The problem is still that you haven't backed up anyting at all.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:10am PT
|
The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb
Neil H. Shubin1, Edward B. Daeschler2 and Farish A. Jenkins, Jr3
Top of page
Abstract
Wrists, ankles and digits distinguish tetrapod limbs from fins, but direct evidence on the origin of these features has been unavailable. Here we describe the pectoral appendage of a member of the sister group of tetrapods, Tiktaalik roseae, which is morphologically and functionally transitional between a fin and a limb. The expanded array of distal endochondral bones and synovial joints in the fin of Tiktaalik is similar to the distal limb pattern of basal tetrapods. The fin of Tiktaalik was capable of a range of postures, including a limb-like substrate-supported stance in which the shoulder and elbow were flexed and the distal skeleton extended. The origin of limbs probably involved the elaboration and proliferation of features already present in the fins of fish such as Tiktaalik.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04637.html
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:13am PT
|
Laurie Anderson, "Langue d'Amour"
Let's see. Uh, it was on an island. And there was a snake.
And this snake had legs. And he could walk all around the island.
Yes. That's true. A snake with legs.
And the man and the woman were on the island too.
And they were not very smart.
But they were happy as clams. Yes.
Let's see. Uh... then one evening the snake was walking about
in the garden and he was talking to himself and he saw the woman
and they started to talk. And they became friends.
Very good friends.
And the woman liked the snake very much. Because when he
talked, he made little noises with his tongue, and his long tongue
was lightly licking about his lips.
Like there was a little fire inside his mouth and the flame
would come dancing out of his mouth.
And the woman liked this very much.
And after that, she was bored with the man.
Because no matter what happened,
he was always as happy as a clam.
What did the snake say? Yes! What was he saying?
OK. I will tell you.
The snake told her things about the world. He told her about
the time there was a big typhoon on the island
and all the sharks came out of the water. Yes.
They came out of the water and they walked right into your house
with their big white teeth.
And the woman heard these things. And she was in love.
And the man came out and said: We have to go now!
And the woman did not want to go. Because she was a hothead.
Because she was a woman in love.
Anyway, we got into their boat and left the island.
But they never stayed anywhere very long.
Because the woman was restless. She was a hothead.
She was a woman in love.
And this is not a story my people tell.
It is something I know myself.
And when I do my job, I am thinking about these things.
Because when I do my job, that is what I think about.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:28am PT
|
the theory of evolution requires that the changes to organisms take place over a very long time.
In Darwin's summary (I take the latest, 6th edition, see link in the intial post of this thread) he explores the objections to his theory of evolution. It is a good read and addresses most of the reasonable objections, Blight is being obtuse to demand to see a camel evolve from a hare, it is not what Darwin claims is happening, e.g.:
"With respect to existing forms, we should remember that we have no right to expect (excepting in rare cases) to discover directly connecting links between them, but only between each and some extinct and supplanted form. Even on a wide area, which has during a long period remained continuous, and of which the climatic and other conditions of life change insensibly in proceeding from a district occupied by one species into another district occupied by a closely allied species, we have no just right to expect often to find intermediate varieties in the intermediate zones. For we have reason to believe that only a few species of a genus ever undergo change; the other species becoming utterly extinct and leaving no modified progeny."
On page 408, Darwin realizes that his theory requires that the history of the earth, as known in his time, was incompatable with the time scales required for evolution to take place:
"With respect to the absence of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian formation, I can recur only to the hypothesis given in the tenth chapter; namely, that though our continents and oceans have endured for an enormous period in nearly their present relative positions, we have no reason to assume that this has always been the case; consequently formations much older than any now known may lie buried beneath the great oceans. With respect to the lapse of time not having been sufficient since our planet was consolidated for the assumed amount of organic change, and this objection, as urged by Sir William Thompson , is probably one of the gravest as yet advanced, I can only say, firstly, that we do not know at what rate species change as measured by years, and secondly, that many philosophers are not as yet willing to admit that we know enough of the constitution of the universe and of the interior of our globe to speculate with safety on its past duration."
I take this to be one of the great predictions of his theory, that the earth was much older than thought at the time. He was right! And he also predicted that the geography of the earth was not static... he was right.
On the issue of human breeding vs. natural variation, he has a long discussion:
"There is no reason why the principles which have acted so efficiently under domestication should not have acted under nature."
Blight should study the Summary... in it Darwin discusses much, e.g. :"But the chief cause of our natural unwillingness to admit that one species has given birth to other and distinct species, is that we are always slow in admitting great changes of which we do not see the steps."
on rapid and spontaneous variation:
"He who believes that some ancient form was transformed suddenly through an internal force or tendency into, for instance, one furnished with wings, will be almost compelled to assume, in opposition to all analogy, that many individuals varied simultaneously. It cannot be denied that such abrupt and great changes of structure are widely different from those which most species apparently have undergone. He will further be compelled to believe that many structures beautifully adapted to all the other parts of the same creature and to the surrounding conditions, have been suddenly produced; and of such complex and wonderful co-adaptations, he will not be able to assign a shadow of an explanation. He will be forced to admit that these great and sudden transformations have left no trace of their action on the embryo. To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of Science."
Another great prediction is the need for some mechanism of heredity... Darwin's theory correctly predicts the existence of genes, which exist in all organisms and which function in an identical manner. While we have not yet untangled how this genetic information controls the exact "construction" of an organism, we have the stunning basis for the theory of evolution.
Blight, you may believe what you will, but do not confuse your thoughts for anything vaguely scientific. You are not interested in learning, you are only interested in forwarding a peculiar agenda which is anti-scientific and intentionally ignorant.
You have not shown the slightest evidence of a careful study of Darwin, much less of any of the subsequent scientific work in evolution. Yet you would profess that evolution is an absurd theory with nothing to say about the world around you.
You are the harbinger of a new dark ages... though likely more terrible than the last.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:58am PT
|
Blight is being obtuse to demand to see a camel evolve from a hare
It would be obtuse, but I didn't ask for that, or anything like it. Classic strawman tactic there.
I didn't claim that rapid or instant variation occurred either. that's another strawman.
It amuses me that you get so angry and frustrated when your dogma is questioned. It amuses me further that despite my having already said that I don't doubt darwin at all, you continue to construct more bizarre strawmen, based on the idea that I do.
I'm just asking for observations. Evidence. Scientific data.
You have provided none of those to support the theory you espouse. If this was almost any other theory - one which has a total absence of direct evidence, only a complex self-referential web of circusmtance, inference and induction coupled to a rigorous insistence by proponents that this theory needs no support - any sane scientist would laugh it out of the journals, and I bet you would too.
But instead, anyone questioning the dogma and asking for evidence is subjected to a barrage of abuse.
The mechanism of evolution as currently described is plain, flat out WRONG. It is unsupported, unscientific and unbelievable. But until you accept that there is a possibility that what you believe is incorrect, it is you, not I who holds back the development of alternative ideas.
Who holds back science:
The man who questions what he suspects is incorrect?
Or the man who says that it cannot and must not be questioned?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 12:05pm PT
|
If everything existing developed by accident or chaos and can be reduced to chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc, where is the independence or the freedom of choice of the living entity?
If life is merely a combination of chemicals, why can't we bring a dead body back to life by simply injecting the missing chemical?
Even the structures of the most simple micro-organisms are so complex that their cause is completely unexplainable either by mutation or by gradual evolution. (The brain, consists of billions of neurons which are linked in a highly complex network.)
Materialistic science tries to control, manipulate, and exploit nature with the help of their scientific discoveries. This is a fundamental mistake because the way nature is designed is to bring the living entity to the point of understanding that the plan to "lord over material nature" is a futile attempt.
Matter in itself is lifeless and moves only due to the presence of spiritual energy.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 12:23pm PT
|
If life is merely a combination of chemicals, why can't we bring a dead body back to life by simply injecting the missing chemical?
Or indeed start new life the same way?
So many "answers" we are commanded to accept by the scientific community just have no evidence to support them. So why does questioning them draw such abuse and bitterness?
|
|
pc
climber
East of Seattle
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 12:53pm PT
|
Actually it's not the questioning part that's bothersome. That's what science is all about, right? The more questioning and angles looked from, the better the understanding, right?
Devil's advocacy aside...What do you "believe" Blight? State your position. or are you just a critic? (sorry if it's buried somewhere in the thread above. Couldn't bring myself to read all of your "ponging")
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 01:57pm PT
|
If you're not a creationist, yet don't acknolwedge evolution, what is your take on this, Blight?
-back to work
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 01:59pm PT
|
I think I know how to resolve this. Blight, how hard can you climb? Oh wait, this isn't gonna work with Werner. Um, never mind. Back to retirement from this thread.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 02:26pm PT
|
oh,yeah, if you're still here gru-nkee. I agree with the heirarchical palcement sthe other day. I think I was bending over to far to be 'fair.'
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 03:18pm PT
|
I'm too young for retirement.
Blight seems to be making a challenge to science itself, not just Darwinism when he says banal things like So many "answers" we are commanded to accept by the scientific community just have no evidence to support them.
You know Blight, there's this little thing called peer review in scientific circles. Briefly, there exist journals in every scientific field where scientists publish their works which then become open for critical review. Scientists don't treat each other with kid gloves. There is, of course, a preliminary review just to make it into the journal in the first place. If there are inconsistencies in the data or flawed logic, you can bet that the reviewers and scientific community are all over it. This is what prevents bad science from ever making it into the mainstream.
Too bad theology doesn't have something similar, then perhaps some of the wackiest ideas would be weeded out for what they are.
By the way, still waiting on some viable alternative to evolution.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 03:29pm PT
|
"If life is merely a combination of chemicals, why can't we bring a dead body back to life by simply injecting the missing chemical?"
"Or indeed start new life the same way?"
This is rolling right back to the god-of-the-gaps idea referenced above. Just because scientific method has not yet produced all of the answers is no reason to revert to magical thinking. A thousand years ago virtually all natural phenomena were ascribed to god's will. Reason and science have changed a lot of that, but until they provide the same level of psychological comfort as myth-making, there will always be True Believers peddling their pies in the sky. So comfy it's a pity.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 03:38pm PT
|
Blight, who are you? are you a practicing scientist? do you know anything at all about science except what you read in USA Today?
The fact is that scienticist who actually allow themselves to be named and refered to, in fact most scientists, would agree that the theory of evolution is the fundamental description of biology.
This is not dogma, but based on the many tests of theory of evolution, much of which was laid out by Darwin in the Origin, and developed by biologists for over a century. You can state it is "dogma" because it does not agree with you own beliefs, but the scientific basis of evolution is not based on belief, but on scientific tests. As we have stated before, tests of theories are not positive, they are negative... and so far evolution has been shown to be consistent with observation.
You don't have to accept that definition of the scientific method, but it is a method highly successful in increasing our understanding of the world.
You have not shown that evolution is inconsistent with observation, that would disprove the theory. Many such tests exist, and evolution is consistent with them all. It is not a conspiracy of scientists to suppress the truth, but a campaign of people who will not accept the theory that are the source of the controversy.
There is no controversy, evolution is a full fledged scientific theory and accepted as such.
The pathway to understanding the theory is open to all, it is not revelatory, but investigative, and the investigation is open to all. If you want to make the statement that evolution is wrong, then you have to back it up...
...so far, you want evidence that it could have happened from me, I want evidence that it couldn't have happened from you. That is actually the way we work in science. Until you can disprove it, we continue to work as if it were correct... because it has not been shown to be incorrect.
Have at it... and lay off the usual anti-evolution sites, they don't understand science either.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 03:50pm PT
|
Good, constructive criticism, Sketch.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 07:28pm PT
|
More from Dawkins, to illuminate or inflame, your choice:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20061023/cm_huffpost/032164
"Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable."
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 08:03pm PT
|
Wbraun writes, " Evolution is accepted, but not Darwin's theory.It is confirmed in Padma Purana that the species of life evolved from aquatics to plants, vegetables, trees; thereafter insects, reptiles, flies, birds, then beasts, and then human kind. This is the gradual process of evolution of species of life."
This is a cut and paste from http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2000/10/00182.html
"Darwin has no clear conception how the evolution is taking place, neither does he have any idea about whose evolution. He simply takes account of the body. A body never evolves. It is the soul within the body, that evolves, transmigrates from one body to another."
This is a cut and paste from
http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2000/10/00183.html
"If everything existing developed by accident or chaos and can be reduced to chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc, where is the independence or the freedom of choice of the living entity?
If life is merely a combination of chemicals, why can't we bring a dead body back to life by simply injecting the missing hemical? Even the structures of the most simple micro-organisms are so complex that their cause is completely unexplainable either by mutation or by gradual evolution. (The brain, consists of billions of neurons which are linked in a highly complex network.) Materialistic science tries to control, manipulate, and exploit nature with the help of their scientific discoveries. This is a fundamental mistake because the way nature is designed is to bring the living entity to the point of understanding that the plan to "lord over material nature" is a futile attempt.
Matter in itself is lifeless and moves only due to the presence of spiritual energy."
This is a cute and paste from
http://www.harekrishnatemple.com/bhakta/chapter22.html
Wbraun, how can you be sure that these Hare Krishna web sites are correct?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!